This is a patent case dealing with mobile antennas. Defendant filed a motion to exclude testimony from two of the Plaintiff’s experts. Judge Mazzant granted the motion in part, and in doing so set forth the relevant standards for expert testimony and answered a number of questions about whether certain types of opinions are categorically inadmissible.
On the surface, it just says it’s a ruling on a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to transfer venue, but under that plain exterior lurks a detailed analysis of the defenses of personal jurisdiction (which is not, repeat NOT what you were taught in law school) , improper venue under the general venue statute (and how to throw it away), and a motion to transfer under Section 1404.
So while it’s not exactly everything you need to know about these motions – it’s not the Magna Charta of venue law as Judge Heartfield once (well, maybe more than once) described his magnus opus Mohamed v Mazda, it’s still a thorough and useful recitation of the applicable standards.
Many years ago when I was asked to prepare my first federal update paper, I called my federal courts professor from law school and asked him what people want to hear in a federal update. He didn’t hesitate. “Removal and remand.” Why? “Most lawyers don’t know anything about federal court and don’t want to be there. The thing they want to know is how to get out.” So it’s always good to keep a few recent decisions on motions to remand handy, in case you fall into that category. This recent opinion by Judge Mazzant fits the bill nicely, as it addresses a requirement few think about.
Defendants in this case filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Statute of Limitations, Preemption, and Preclusion. Magistrate Judge Craven recommended that the motion be denied with two exceptions, and Judge Mazzant addressed the objections in the attached order.
This is a opinion from Judge Richard Schell resolving six motions in a case involving a defendant’s liability for cargo damage, including most notably, cross motions for summary judgment as to whether Defendant BNSF was liable for cargo damage following a derailment.
Motions for new trial don’t have quite the same significance in federal court as they do in Texas state court, but they are, nonetheless an important tool to at least evaluate after hell has gone to a handbasket at trial. In this Sherman Division case, Judge Clark denied a motion for new trial by the losing party which raised several issues.
I usually don’t post cases that involve pro se parties or motions that aren’t opposed, but the Court’s analysis of this motion to compel arbitration is a helpful summary of the necessary analysis on whether to enforce an arbitration clause contained in a contract, and when a court may appoint an arbitrator.
Motions to disqualify counsel are not common in civil litigation locally, and motions based not on conflicts but on counsel’s conduct in litigation are even rare. This order from Judge Mazzant addresses this issue in a case where the attorneys’ conduct in the case was at issue.
I’m sorry – I just can’t hear about a court “sitting in equity” without wondering whether everyone needs to reach in their briefcase and find their wigs. (I realize a few may already have them on, and guys, your secret – such as it is – is safe with me). That’s probably not quite what it looked like in Judge Mazzant’s courtroom in Sherman when he pressed “enter” to paste his electronic signature on the opinion in this interesting Lanham Act case dealing with remedies. But a good exposition of the law is always welcome, so let’s see what happened here.
I wanted to flag this ABA Journal article on former EDTX magistrate Judge Don Bush’s “retirement” plans after leaving his magistrate judge bench in Plano last year. After becoming a certified emergency medical technician and paramedic during his last months on the bench, Judge Bush now works weekly shifts at a nonprofit urgent care clinic with an ambulance service.
It’s not as weird as it sounds – when Judge Bush was in college before he headed out to Southeast Asia for a few years with the U.S. Army, he worked in a hospital as a lab tech. His twin brother is a doctor and his son is an ER doctor. His son has been doing medical mission work in Haiti, and earlier this year he went to Haiti with his son, daughter-in-law and three of his grandchildren. He spent two days in the mountains and two in a village; and says that in four days, he saw around 700 people. (Which is about what he often saw in Plano, now that I think about it).
I’ve known Judge Bush since my law clerk days when he was trying railroad cases in Marshall, and almost got to help try a case against him a few years after that. I had several interesting patent cases in his court in Plano a few years back, and really enjoyed appearing before him. The story of how he mediated one of his own cases is still one of my favorites – my current firm was opposite us, and Clyde and I had more fun that afternoon than I have ever had in a mediation. One of our clients got sanctioned before the day was out, but you have to ask me for the story to find out which one. It all ended happily with a grant of summary judgment, which is actually a second story dealing with the unappreciated benefits to defendants of limits on summary judgment. (No one ever asks for that one).
And I’m not even getting into the SpongeBob stories, conversing with witnesses in Korean at trial in Marshall, or the approach a former railroad lawyer takes when handling patent cases (which made so much sense it made my teeth hurt). Don Bush has been one of my favorite lawyers for a long time, and we were fortunate to have him on the EDTX bench for 15 years managing a difficult docket in Plano. Glad to hear he’s still finding something useful to do with his time.